-
Well, sort-of public funding for housing--quality impaired by the involvement of interests that do not solely aim at delivering public housing as a public service. Some of those kinds of organisations--ALMOs, etc.--seem to work OK but not adequately. The sector in general has fallen far short of delivering what's needed, of which this is an extreme example. I've seen a few things happening around this that have led me to conclude the compromises, which are basically political constructs to avoid the dreaded signal that a reintroduction of proper public services is needed, don't work. If anything, I consider this case an argument for real public funding, but of course it isn't quite such a simple generality given all the differences between the set-ups, councils, etc.
You are reading a single comment by @Oliver Schick and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Oliver Schick
Depressingly awful on so many levels :(
If I go on it'll be partly informed but not really informed enough, but beyond the inadequate construction and failure to repair, then using it as an argument against public funding for housing?!